The minority vote, the blue wall, and the mandate: the key figures that will determine the outcome of the presidential race

Reuters

After a campaign of unprecedented expense and duration, the third presidential contest in the past four to divide America almost exactly in half is now almost in the hands of the voters. With polls showing President Obama holding a small lead over Mitt Romney in key battleground states, but locked in a virtual dead-heat nationally, here's a look at the factors that could decide who gets the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the race for the White House on Nov. 6.

1. What is the minority share of the vote?

Key number: 26% or more

Obama is likely to win about twice as large a proportion of the non-white as the white vote. How many whites and non-whites vote is therefore the single most important question in the election, both nationally and in the key swing states.

Since 1992 the non-white share of the vote has grown steadily at about three percentage points with every election, from 12 percent when Bill Clinton was first elected, to 26 percent for Barack Obama's election in 2008. If the trend has continued this year, it will make Obama's path to reelection much easier. But if minority turnout lags, or turnout among older conservative whites soars -- as it did in the 2010 mid-term election--it will make the math much more favorable for Romney. Youth turnout is critical here too, because about 40 percent of the Millennial Generation are non-white, compared to only about half that among seniors.

Obama's team projects a 27 percent or 28 percent minority share of the vote; Romney's advisers expect it to remain stagnant at 26 percent, or perhaps even decline. Such small shifts could have huge implications for battleground states with rapidly growing minority populations, including Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Florida and maybe North Carolina. The challenge for Romney is that even though surveys show enthusiasm about voting lagging among Hispanics (who are the fastest-growing minority group), Census Bureau data show that minorities now comprise 29 percent of all those eligible to vote. So, even if the percentage of eligible minority voters who turn out to vote is lower than in 2008, their share of the total electorate could still increase.

2. Can Obama hit the 80/40 mark?

Key numbers: 80 percent of 26 percent + 40 percent of 74 percent

Obama's formula for success can be succinctly expressed. If minorities constitute at least 26 percent of the vote (as they did last time), and he wins at least 80 percent of their cumulative votes (as he did last time), he can win a national majority with support from only about 40 percent of whites. But there's no guarantee he can reach even that modest number. Obama last time won 43 percent of whites, but Democrats captured only 37 percent of them in the 2010 Congressional elections, according to exit polls at the time. Obama had 39 percent among whites in two polls released on November 4. That would probably lift him just over the 40 percent marker when undecideds are allocated -- but with achingly little margin for error.

Other factors could give Obama more breathing room. The share of whites he needs would decline to just above 38 percent if minorities rise to 27 percent of the vote and he wins 82 percent of them, both of which seem possible. All of this means that Romney could run as well among white voters as any Republican challenger ever -- and still lose. Whatever happens, the election is likely to send Republicans an irrefutable message about the long-term demographic implausibility of building their coalition almost entirely from white voters in a country that is now nearly 40 percent non-white.

3. Can Obama hold his gains among working-class whites in the Rustbelt?

Key number: 10 percentage points

As I've written on Quartz before, the central paradox in this election is that while Obama is facing a potentially historic repudiation among working-class white voters overall, those same voters in a few Midwestern states could be the ones who get him re-elected.

Nationally, the November 4 Pew Research poll, like many others, showed Obama winning just 33 percent of white men without a college education and only 38 percent of non-college white women, the so-called "waitress moms". That would be the weakest performance for any Democratic nominee among those voters since Walter Mondale was buried in the Ronald Reagan landslide of 1984. Yet in the key Midwestern battlegrounds of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio, Obama is running about 10 percentage points better among the blue-collar white men and as much as 18 percentage points better among the waitress moms. (The same pattern is present, to a lesser extent, in Michigan, which Romney had hoped to bring into play.)

The reasons for that difference are several -- the Midwest's relatively stronger economic recovery, the popularity of Obama's bailout of the car industry, and the cultural resonance in the region of Obama's attacks on Romney as a plant-closing corporate raider. But the effect is singular: so long as the president can hold his blue-collar Rustbelt advances, he remains the favorite to reach 270 Electoral College votes.

4. Can Romney breach the "blue wall"?

Key numbers: 18 and 242

If Obama wins Ohio, the only realistic way for Romney to win is to crack what I've called the "blue wall" -- the 18 states that have voted Democratic in each of the past five presidential elections. Here's why: the blue-wall states, which include the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (except New Hampshire); the three West Coast states plus Hawaii; and Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin in the Upper Midwest, offer a combined 242 Electoral College votes (including the District of Columbia). If Obama holds that 242, adds the five votes from New Mexico (that both sides assume he will), the six from Nevada (which appear increasingly solid in his corner) and Ohio's 18, that gives him 271, regardless of what happens in any other swing state.

That explains why Romney is not only fiercely contesting Wisconsin (which has supported Democrats in every election since Reagan's win there in 1984), but is also making a late play for Pennsylvania (which hasn't voted Republican since 1988) and Minnesota (which hasn't backed the Republicans since 1972). If Obama wins Ohio, and barring a huge surprise in Nevada, Romney can't win without snatching one of those three states.

5. Can Romney retake the Sunbelt?

Key numbers: 5 and 72

Obama's big geographic breakthrough in 2008 was rooted in changing demographics. He captured a succession of diverse, growing Sunbelt states -- including Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada -- that had voted Democratic only rarely over the previous 40 years. He did this mostly because those five states' electorates, with 72 Electoral College votes between them, have been reshaped by two titanic social forces that Obama himself embodies: rising education levels and increasing diversity.

But now polls show Obama facing a more precarious situation in all of those states (except Nevada) than in the central Rustbelt battlegrounds of Ohio and Wisconsin. It's mainly because, compared to the Rustbelt, Obama faces much weaker numbers among working-class whites in these Sunbelt states--where his attack on Mitt Romney's days as a corporate raider and harbinger of industrial decline doesn't detonate as powerfully.

Obama's disadvantage among working-class voters in these states is big. Recent polls in North Carolina, Colorado, Florida and Virginia each put Obama below 30 percent among non-college white men. To overcome these deficits he needs a big turnout from both minorities and suburban, college-educated whites, especially women, who he's courting on social, more than economic, issues. As Democrats face a systemic decline among working-class whites (at least beyond those few Midwestern states), that upstairs-downstairs coalition of white-collar whites and minorities represents the party's future. But in this election several of the Sunbelt states that most embody that "coalition of the ascendant" could snap back to their Republican leanings from the 1970s to 2004.

The problem for Romney, however, is that winning all of these Sunbelt battlegrounds (apart from Nevada) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning the election overall.

6. Can anyone win a mandate to govern?

Key number: 3 percent

From any angle, the narrowness of the divide evident in this election is extraordinary. Today it appears entirely possible that either Obama or Romney will win the popular vote by less than three percentage points. If the race is indeed that close, it would mark the third time in the past four presidential elections that a winner was decided by that amount or less.

That hasn't happened since the five elections during the Gilded Age from 1876-1892, another period defined by epic economic and demographic change -- and by a political system that proved incapable of responding to it. In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by just 2.4 percentage points: the smallest margin of victory, as a share of the popular vote, ever for a re-elected president. Even if Obama wins the popular vote, his margin might be even smaller than that. There's also the more distant possibility that he could become the first incumbent ever to lose the popular vote while winning the Electoral College.

Either way, the overriding message of the election is likely to be that while the two parties are more than ever poles apart, the country itself remains closely divided. That means that after the votes are counted, the common challenge for whoever wins will be to build a working majority for change -- no easy feat in a nation that remains bitterly, and durably, fractured along lines of gender, education, ideology, region and race.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.